ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adherence to STARD guidelines in miRNA diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Periapical Lesion Detection on Panoramic Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research.European radiology · 2024Article
- Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Article
- Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Developing Consensus-Based Guidelines for Case Reporting in Aesthetic Medicine: Enhancing Transparency and Standardization.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether encouraging authors to follow the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines improves the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
methodsIn mid-2017, European Radiology started encouraging its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Our MEDLINE search identified 114 diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology in 2015 and 2019. The quality of reporting was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the revised STARD statement. Item 11 was excluded because a meaningful decision about adherence was not possible. Student's t test for independent samples was used to analyze differences in the mean number of reported STARD items between studies published in 2015 and in 2019. In addition, we calculated differences related to the study design, data collection, and citation rate.
resultsThe mean total number of reported STARD items for all 114 diagnostic accuracy studies analyzed was 15.9 ± 2.6 (54.8%) of 29 items (range 9.5-22.5). The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was significantly better in 2019 (mean ± standard deviation (SD), 16.3 ± 2.7) than in 2015 (mean ± SD, 15.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.02). No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09).
conclusionThe quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies according to the STARD statement was moderate with a slight improvement since European Radiology started to recommend its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. KEY POINTS: • The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate with a mean total number of reported STARD items of 15.9 ± 2.6. • The adherence to STARD was significantly better in 2019 than in 2015 (16.3 ± 2.7 vs. 15.1 ± 2.3; p = 0.016). • No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.